RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03811

							COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Medal of Honor.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions on 18 Jul 65 warrant award of the Medal of Honor.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force Reserve first lieutenant and during the period in question was serving in the Regular Air Force in the same grade.

On 18 May 65, the applicant was attached to HQ 2d Air Division, Aide-de-Camp, Ton Son Nhut AFB, Vietnam.

On 11 Dec 66, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force and appointed to the Air Force Reserve where he was honorably discharged on 12 Jun 68.

In 2015, according to SAF/MRBP, the applicant’s daughter submitted request for award of the Medal of Honor to the Air Force Decorations Board which was returned without action as the request did not meet the basic criteria that the “recommendation must be made by someone, other than the member himself, in the member’s chain of command at the time of the incident, and has firsthand knowledge of the act(s) or achievement.”  It was recommended the applicant submit an application to the BCMR.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP and AFPC/DPSOR completed an administrative correction for award of the Vietnam Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and Vietnam Campaign Medal; however, AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying award of the Medal of Honor.  While the applicant made a previous request for award of the Medal of Honor and per response from the Secretary of the Air Force Legislative Liaison to his Senator’s office, dated 29 Jun 16, the applicant was advised that the “ear witness statements” provided were not eyewitness statements.  The applicant’s current package is still incomplete and lack eyewitness statements and a proposed citation. In order to proceed, the Air Force Personnel Center will need a statement from the driver. Without the complete package and proper documentation, the applicant's request cannot be reasonably considered.  The complete advisory and memorandum are at Exhibits C and D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s service records are devoid of any reports of actions on 18 Jul 65 and the hearsay witness statement provided by the applicant is not a reliable source for consideration of the Medal of Honor.  Although the applicant’s narrative provides a description of commendable and selfless actions, they do not appear to meet the same standard that was held to the other 14 recipients who received the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War. The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 5 Feb 18 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was not timely file.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and SAF/MRBP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records, beyond that rendered administratively.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:  

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5., considered Docket Number BC-2016-03811 in Executive Session on 20 Jun 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 Sep 16.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, w/atch, dated 14 Jan 17.
Exhibit D:  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, w/atch, dated 27 Mar 17.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 1 Feb 18.
Exhibit F:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Feb 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.